Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
edge -- >> questions to editor she mentioned the cold war. the request and asking what role does russia play in the world going forward. >> it is -- in a challenge of the finding its identity under totally different circumstances. russia has been an imperial power and it has had domestic support by its efforts in asia, the middle east and europe, depending on where it was, now russia has the problem of a declining population. declining russian population and muslim population that is forward of the muslim world. 3,000 miles from china which is based tricky dick nightmare in the sense that there are thirty million russians are on one side and 1 billion chinese on the other end the middle east which is an ideological nightmare and in europe, a historically difficult one for them so how -- and yet the image russia has of its leadership is that they have to be considered as a principal country in order to be taken seriously so fundamentally russia has to look for a pattern of cooperation but found methods of doing it but russia is not strategic to the west, bringing pressure on its neighbor
in syria. we've seen three security council vetoes by russia and china causing many to call the u.n., essentially, ineffective in this crisis. so it's been the interplay of these three factors, i would argue, that has led syria down the path that it has taken. in terms of u.s. policy, u.s. policy is based on the objective of having assad, as president obama called for, step aside. this was back in august of 2011. the problem with u.s. policy is that it has continually been at conflict with itself in terms of how to achieve that objective while also achieving or protecting u.s. national security interests in the region. namely, i would argue, very understandable concerns about, about the impact of unseating assad and the potential for massive instability across the region. so at the crux of u.s. policy on syria, i would argue, has resided this tension of wanting assad to go but being concerned and fearful about how to achieve that objective while also seeking to maintain stability in such a volatile region of the world. now, the debate right now on syria is focused largely on this
, china, france, germany, russia, known as the p5+1, and the united kingdom have tried to negotiate with iran over its nuclear program. of sides have fumbled the opportunities to reduce the risks of nuclear-armed iran, and to prevent the risk of war, to reduce the risk of war over that nuclear program. since 2007, the u.s. and western intelligence agencies have assessed that iran is nuclear capable, meaning that iran has a scientific, technical and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so. and those intelligence agencies continue to this day to assess that iran has not yet made a decision to do so. intelligence agencies and independent experts also believe that starting from today iran will require several months to acquire enough this'll material for just one bomb and still more time to build a deliverable nuclear weapon. secretary of defense and a estimate it would take two to three years to do so. in the latest international atomic energy agency report, based on its ongoing inspections iran's nuclear facility, particularly the fordo enrichm
called a nuclear threat was a real problem. during those days, the cold war really focused on russia at the united states, the two powerhouses. fast forward, you have vietnam. vietnam is an adventure into itself in terms of north and south vietnam. many of you may have served. and you move fast forward and we're going to have russia, the berlin wall came down. we will have benefits of that -- of the peace dividend. it was multiple stands. pick a stand. it became a challenge in terms of stability of government resources and the data we knew about this particular companies. move on forward, 9/11 happened. everyone of you remember is where you were on 9/11. i was on the steps of the pentagon. i literally walked out of the building that day and i was there for meeting and remember hearing on that gorgeous blue day and absolute eerie sound. like a plane had taken a wrong turn. lo and behold, the next thing i knew i was on the bottom stairs and i am thinking, how did i get from the top to bottom of the stairs? the plane hit the building. i did not know in where i was sitting at that point
phone, we brought in china, india and russia. again, secretary of state would have to go two or three times a year. we also articulate we would maintain our force levels. we got off to a good start. but i can only say that we partially succeeded in elevating the importance of asia. partly because even i was at the time in his and other economies was coming, was not crystal-clear as it is today. and partly because secretary and the president kept getting dragged akin to other issues. you asked about the presence the. he thought the issue was important. he realized the importance of trade and so on. the first couple years of his initiation of clinton focus on the domestic economy which by the what was the most single important thing you can do for your foreign policy, above all today. so, and christopher spent a lot of time in asia and went out, secretary christopher, to the region, but he often would get subsumed in the bosnia crisis. we have somalia and haiti and other crises in the middle east. and so although we raise the profile, i don't think we were able to succeed, certainly as
in a stone in 2007 during a dispute with russia -- estonia, and various banks and government institutions in estonia were hit with denial of service attacks. just to say, attacks that kept those institutions from at least running on the internet, capped their websites working, maybe disrupted their operations one way or another the interestingly in response to the estonia events, nato established a cybersecurity center of excellence in estonia in 2008, and they've been studying this from nader's perspective from a law of war perspective since then. recently published a very comprehensive treatise on the subject of law of war and cyber warfare. you see the same thing in georgia. press accounts suggesting that the russian government was behind cyberattacks that occurred contemporaneously prior to land forces going into georgia in 2008. and there are other examples like this, and is one of the panelists mentioned, as john mentioned in his introduction, even secretary panetta recently gave a speech, and according to press accounts officials at dod have suggested that iran has been behind a nu
them towards that will be huge. with issues in russia where radio free europe radio free europe basic or shut down its operations because they can't get the licensing because the government refuses to allow licenses to reading stations. we're going to see that. that to me, how we continue to use technology to push public diplomacy forward towards regimes that are going to use technology or intimidation to prevent that i think is going to really determine how the next four years ago. [inaudible] >> i would. it's a law that stops the state department from communicating with americans. it does present a lot of problems in an internet age. can i just add one thing? what p.j. said reminded me that i may have forgotten the most important legacy of all, and one of the things i meant to say here, which is i think that public diplomacy needs a big success. i think for public diplomacy to grow and become more important, we need to be able, the mecca people need to be able to point to something and say hey, that works. so for example, most americans believe that radio free europe helped bring do
now in terms of how will it be taken forward with russia and china? will there be confrontation? the question that's going to be asked and needs to be asked is because strategy is needed is to go to the russians and say basically, now what do you want? the president is there for four more years, no more elections, what is it that you want? deliver what the russians or not? cold war they want or what is -- what consequences of that? from what i understand the foreign minister of russia was meeting with the gulf ministers, the gcc ministers, i, from what my information is he did not give in. they are standing exactly where they were. this is not -- the strategy is needed. it is not a strategy, and the u.s., no matter how much we try to run away from that situation in syria and israel and iran, it's, yeah, light footed or heavy footed, leadership is needed. >> one follow-up question. do you see the current situation, you talked about the instability and opportunity as they say in america, an opportunity to change the channel. is it likely an opportunity for assad to change the chan
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8